application of balanced scorecard as a tool for strategy
TRANSCRIPT
APPLICATION OF BALANCED SCORECARD AS A TOOL FOR
STRATEGY EVALUATION AND CONTROL BY
PHARMACEUTICAL MANUFACTURING FIRMS IN KENYA
JOAN WAIRIMU WANYUTU
A RESEARCH PROJECT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE AWARD OF THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, SCHOOL OF
BUSINESS, UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI
NOVEMBER 2014
ii
DECLARATION
This research project is my original work and has never been presented in any other
university or college for a degree or any other award.
Signed: _____________________ Date ___________________
JOAN WAIRIMU WANYUTU
This research Project has been submitted for examination with my approval as the
University Supervisor.
Signature: ………………………… Date: ………………………….
MR. ELIUD O. MUDUDA
Lecturer,
Department of Business administration
School of Business
University of Nairobi
iii
DEDICATION
I dedicate this project to my dear mother, the late Mrs. Mary Njango Wanyutu who
passed on during the process of the data collection for this project. Your selfless sacrifice
throughout your entire life saw me acquire a university degree which became the
platform through which this master‟s degree became possible. May the Lord rest her soul
in eternal peace.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I thank God for the gift of life, health, strength, wisdom and knowledge for this far he has
brought me.
Thanks to my supervisor Mr. Eliud Mududa for his invaluable assistance, guidance and
patience throughout this project. Thank you for creating time in your busy schedule, may
God bless you abundantly.
Special thanks to my sons Dr Leon Muigai Wanyutu and Peter Kimani Wanyutu for their
encouragement as I studied this MBA course.
Thanks to all the lecturers and colleagues with whom we started this journey together and
now it has come to a completion.
Last and not least, thanks to all the pharmaceutical manufacturing companies for
providing their data, without which this project would not have been possible.
v
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
AIDS - Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome
BE - Bioequivalence studies
BSC - The Balanced Scorecard
COMESA - Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa
GDP - Gross domestic product
GSK - GlaxoSmithKline
HIV - Human Immunodeficiency Virus
IDF - Import Declaration Fees
KEMSA - Kenya Medical Supplies agency
MNCs - Multinational companies
MOH - Ministry of Health
OTC - over the counter
PPB - Pharmacy and Poisons Board of Kenya
RBV - Resource Based View theory
R&D - Research and development
SCA - Sustainable competitive advantage
SWOT - Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats
WHO - World health organization
VAT - Value added tax
vi
ABSTRACT
The Balanced Scorecard (BSC) has evolved from an important tool used to measure the
performance of an organization to a strategic performance management framework that
allows organizations to manage and measure the delivery of their strategies. In order to
determine the effects of strategic management elements on business performance, it is
important to carry out evaluation and control on such elements. One cannot control what
cannot be measured hence these elements need to be measured. The BSC has evolved
into a model that aids organizations in strategy evaluation by harnessing its multiple
benefits. The pharmaceutical manufacturing industry in Kenya is operating in a very
competitive environment and as such it is important for these firms to apply strategies
that will enable them to gain SCA. The research question in this project was to find out to
what extent the Pharmaceutical Manufacturing firms in Kenya applies BSC in strategy
evaluation and control of strategy. The research was a cross sectional study that aimed to
carry out a census of all the nineteen pharmaceutical manufacturing companies registered
by PPB. The questionnaire was directed at one senior top level manager, hence the study
aimed at getting nineteen respondents out of which fourteen responded. The method of
application of the questionnaire was self-administered and was distributed by drop and
pick method. Data analysis for the data from the closed ended questions, that is
quantitative in nature, was done by use of descriptive statistics. Data obtained from the
open ended questions contained qualitative data, same to the secondary data that was
reviewed. This qualitative data was analyzed by content analysis. From the findings of
the study, it can be concluded that Pharmaceutical Manufacturing firms in Kenya have
not fully embraced balanced scorecard as strategy evaluation and control tool, despite the
fact that it has effects on their strategy. The study also found that the financial and
customer perspectives of BSC were rated as evaluated to a great extent while the
innovation and learning and internal business processes perspectives were rated to a
moderate extent. Based on the study findings, it is recommended that employees should
be involved in the whole process of evaluation of the balanced scorecard. Training should
be organized for staff so that they learn more about the concept and fully buy in for the
Pharmaceutical Manufacturing firms in Kenya to achieve the full benefits of the balanced
scorecard. Effective and open communication with employees on the purpose and use of
balanced scorecard as a tool for strategy evaluation and control should be incorporated.
Communicating with the employees in the right way will help them understand balanced
scorecard and how they can use it to improve their performance and more so boost their
strategy. This study focused on the assessment of the effects of balanced scorecard in the
evaluation and control of the strategies at Pharmaceutical Manufacturing firms in Kenya,
it is therefore recommended that similar research could be replicated in other sectors and
the results be compared so as to establish whether there is consistency on the effects of
balanced scorecard in the evaluation and control of their strategies.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION............................................................................................................... ii
DEDICATION.................................................................................................................. iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................ iv
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ......................................................................... v
ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ x
LIST OF FIGURE ........................................................................................................... xi
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 1
1.1 Background of the Study .............................................................................................. 1
1.1.1 Concept of Strategy ............................................................................................ 2
1.1.2 Strategy Evaluation and Control......................................................................... 4
1.1.3 Balanced Scorecard (BSC) and its Application .................................................. 6
1.1.4 Pharmaceutical Industry in Kenya ...................................................................... 7
1.1.5 Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Firms in Kenya ................................................. 9
1.2 Research Problem ...................................................................................................... 11
1.3 Research Objective ..................................................................................................... 13
1.4 Value of the Study ...................................................................................................... 13
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW .............................................................. 14
2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 14
2.2 Theoretical Foundation ............................................................................................... 14
2.3 Strategy Evaluation and Control ................................................................................. 16
2.3.1 Strategy Evaluation and Control Process ......................................................... 17
viii
2.3.2 Models/ Methods of Strategy Evaluation and Control ..................................... 19
2.4 BSC as a method of Strategy Evaluation and Control ................................................ 20
2.4.1 Use of BSC in Strategy Evaluation and Control .............................................. 21
2.4.2 Challenges of BSC in Strategy Evaluation and Control ................................... 22
2.4.3 Benefits of BSC in Strategy Evaluation and Control ....................................... 22
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY.............................................. 24
3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 24
3.2 Research Design.......................................................................................................... 24
3.3 Population of Study..................................................................................................... 24
3.4 Data Collection ........................................................................................................... 24
3.5 Data Analysis .............................................................................................................. 25
CHAPTER FOUR: DATA ANALYSIS, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................. 26
4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 26
4.2 Demographic Results .................................................................................................. 26
4.2.1 Response Rate................................................................................................... 26
4.2.2 Pilot Test Results .............................................................................................. 27
4.2.3 Level of Education ............................................................................................ 28
4.2.4: Qualification of Respondents .......................................................................... 29
4.2.5: Age of the Respondents ................................................................................... 30
4.2.6: Years Worked in the Pharmaceutical Firms .................................................... 31
4.2.7: Years the Company has been in Operation ..................................................... 31
4.2.8 Number of Employees ...................................................................................... 32
4.3 Application of BSC ..................................................................................................... 33
ix
4.3.1 BSC in Strategy Evaluation and Control .......................................................... 33
4.3.2 Review of BSC Policy/Documentation ............................................................ 34
4.3.3 Indicators of BSC Application ......................................................................... 35
4.3.4 Other Parameters for Measure .......................................................................... 38
4.3.5 Parameters Attributed to the Application of BSC ............................................ 39
4.3.6 Benefits of using Balanced Score Card in Strategy Evaluation and Control ........... 40
4.3.7 Challenges of using BSC in Strategy Evaluation and Control ................................ 41
4.3.8 Recommendations to Limit the Challenges of BSC Application ............................ 41
4.3.9 Correlation Analysis ......................................................................................... 41
4.4 Discussion of the Research Findings .......................................................................... 43
CHAPTER FIVE : SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS48
5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 48
5.2 Summary .................................................................................................................... 48
5.3 Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 49
5.4 Limitations of the study .............................................................................................. 49
5.5 Implications and Recommendations ........................................................................... 49
5.6 Recommendation for Further Research ...................................................................... 50
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 51
APPENDICES .................................................................................................................... i
Appendix I: List of companies ............................................................................................. i
Appendix II: Questionnaire................................................................................................. ii
Appendix III: Cover Letter ................................................................................................ ix
x
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.1: Response rate ................................................................................................... 27
Table 4.2: Education Level ............................................................................................... 29
Table 4.3: Qualification of Respondents .......................................................................... 29
Table 4.4: Age of the Respondents ................................................................................... 30
Table 4.5: Years Worked in the Pharmaceutical Firms .................................................... 31
Table 4.6: Number of Employees ..................................................................................... 33
Table 4.7: BSC in Strategy Evaluation and Control ......................................................... 34
Table 4.8: Review of BSC Policy/Documentation ........................................................... 35
Table 4.9: Indicators of BSC Application......................................................................... 36
Table 4.10: Parameters Attributed to the Application of BSC ......................................... 39
Table 4.11: Correlation Coefficient .................................................................................. 42
xi
LIST OF FIGURE
Figure 4.1: Years the Company has been in Operation .................................................... 32
1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study
The Balanced Scorecard (BSC) has evolved from an important tool used to measure the
performance of an organization to a strategic performance management framework that
allows organizations to manage and measure the delivery of their strategy (Kaplan &
Norton, 2001). For an organization to maintain sustainability, it is necessary to have
proper strategic evaluation and control measures in place in order to continually match
the firm‟s capabilities with the dynamic external environment. BSC as a method for
strategy evaluation and control links operational and strategic control. It enables
companies to clarify their strategies, translate them into action and provide feedback as to
whether strategy is creating value.
The need for BSC arose from the view that performance yardstick should be measured
from two different types of performances; namely the financial performance and the
strategic performance. Good strategic performance outcomes indicate a strengthening of
the company‟s competitive advantage, market standing and future business prospects.
Improved strategic performance fosters better financial performance. Regarding strategic
outcomes, Thompson, Strickland and Gamble (2007) summarizes that “a company that
pursues and achieves strategic outcomes that boosts its competitiveness and strength in
the market place is in much better position to improve its financial position.”
2
The pharmaceutical manufacturing firms in Kenya operate under a very competitive
environment hence the need to apply proper strategic management tools to enhance their
competitive advantage. Strategic evaluation and control is the last phase in the process of
strategic management. By application of BSC as a tool for evaluation and control, great
benefits can be harnessed by these firms. This will in turn translate into sustainable
competitive advantage of these firms. This study aims to determine the application of
balanced scorecard approach as a tool for strategy evaluation and control by these firms
and how they evaluate and control the four perspectives of the Balanced Scorecard
namely; financial, customer, growth and learning and internal business process. The
study will aim to contribute to understanding the application of BSC in these firms and
also establish the benefits to those firms that are already using the tool.
1.1.1 Concept of Strategy
Strategy, being a multi-dimensional concept has over the years advanced different
definitions, views and perspectives from different authors and has found application in all
fields of study and life. The concept of strategy in business can be viewed as the bridge
that connects the policies and tactics which together forms the means through which the
ends are achieved. Strategy therefore refers to how well the ends sought are achieved. It
defines an organizations‟ purpose which includes the goals, objectives and priorities. It
aims at positioning a firm in its environment through the SWOT analysis which involves
evaluating the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats of the organization
(Pearce & Robinson, 2011). According to Thompson et al. (2007) strategy is an
effectively communicated vision and a valuable management tool for enlisting the
3
commitment of company personnel to actions that get the company moving in the
intended direction. They further state that strategic management is an ongoing process in
which nothing is final and all prior actions and decisions are subject to future
modification.
Strategy is viewed by Jaunch and Gueck (1988) as the framework of choices that helps an
organization to respond appropriately to environmental requirements to achieve success.
Strategy is what defines an organization in terms of its nature, direction and future
(Johnson & Scholes, 1993). Strategy is also viewed in different perspectives; referred to
as strategy lenses, namely design, experience and ideas (Johnson, Scholes & Whittington,
2002). Strategy as a design whereby strategy is seen as a result of systematic rational
analysis and choice, a forward plan that comes before the event it governs. Strategy as
experience concerns the long term direction of an organization which develops in an
adaptive fashion from existing strategy. Strategy as ideas views strategy as the emergence
of innovation and order from the ideas existing around the organization.
Strategy, according to Mintzberg (1987) can be viewed from different approaches. These
are namely strategy as a plan, ploy, pattern, position and perspective. Strategy as a plan
means planned in advance of the actions it governs and specifies an intended course of
actions. Strategy as a ploy means that aim is to outsmart a competitor‟s threat. Strategy as
a pattern implies emergent strategy that develops after the events it governs. Strategy as a
position indicates how the organization was located in its environment with a view of
maintaining a competitive advantage. Strategy as a perspective shows how an
4
organization perceives the outside world and gives it an identity. Lambert and Knemeyer
(2004) stated that strategies are developed by managers to serve as a guide in how they
will conduct businesses to achieve the organizational objectives. The process of strategic
management mainly involves three phases; namely the formulation phase, the
implementation phase and the evaluation and control phase. These three should be looked
at as three continuous phases that are interlinked; and not as three separate steps in the
process.
1.1.2 Strategy Evaluation and Control
Strategic evaluation and control is the management‟s efforts to track a strategy as it is
being implemented, detect problems or changes in its underlying premises, establish
whether they are still valid and make necessary adjustments (Pearce, Robinson & Mittal,
2010). Strategy evaluation and control, which is the final stage in strategic management,
involves getting information on whether the strategies are performing as per the plans.
This will involve reviewing the external and internal factors which formed the basis of
the current strategies in view of the current performance. All strategies are subject to
future modification because internal and external factors are constantly changing. In this
stage managers determine whether the chosen strategy is achieving the organizations
objective.
The main steps involved in evaluation include first determining what to measure,
establishing standards of measurement then measuring the actual performance. External
and internal factors that form the basis for current strategies are reviewed. Performance is
5
compared to standards and variance noted. If performance is not as per standard, then
corrective action is taken. Characteristics of a good evaluation system are that it should
be economical, information timely, meaningful and relating to the objectives and should
provide a picture of what is happening. The test of a useful evaluation system is its
usefulness and not its complexity.
Controlling is the action taken to correct the variance between actual results and set
standards. It can focus on three main issues depending on the stage at which it is
exercised; feed forward control involves the control of inputs that are required in the
action; concurrent steering or real-time control involves control at different stages of
action process and feedback control involves post action control based on feedback from
the completed action. Managers undertake the control function to ensure that actual
results conform to plan.
Evaluation and control is vital to an organizations well being since it helps avoid
erroneous strategies that can have severe impact to the organization. Proper evaluation
alerts management to problems in a timely manner before a situation becomes critical.
It pinpoints the strengths and weaknesses on which useful control strategy must focus.
This ensures that strategy does not become obsolete but instead will resonate with the
environment which is dynamic. Thus evaluation should not only look at formulated
strategies, but should also address the issues that are emerging as the implementation
takes place. This is what is referred to as emergent strategies.
6
1.1.3 Balanced Scorecard (BSC) and its Application
The Concept of BSC was advanced by Robert S. Kaplan and David P. Norton in 1992.
The BSC aimed at evaluating four perspectives that include Financial, Customer, Internal
business process and Learning and growth. By going beyond the traditional measures of
financial performance, the BSC concept revolutionized the conventional thinking about
performance metrics (Kaplan & Norton, 1996). The financial perspective aims to answer
the question; “to succeed financially; how should we appear to our shareholders?” The
customer perspective aims to look at how the customer sees the firm; the internal
business process perspective aims to look at which processes the firm should excel in and
finally the learning and growth perspective looks at how the firm sustains its ability to
change and how to improve.
For the BSC to be put into practice, it relies on four processes namely; Translating the
vision, Communicating and linking, Business planning and Feedback and learning.
Translating the vision involves clarifying the vision and gaining consensus.
Communicating and linking involves setting goals, educating and linking rewards to
performance measures. Business planning is about looking at targets, aligning strategic
objectives and establishing milestones. Feedback and learning articulates the shared
vision, supplies strategic feedback and facilitates review and learning (Kaplan & Norton,
1992). The company‟s ability to exploit and mobilize its intangible resources as stated by
Kaplan and Norton (1996), has gained importance than just managing tangible resources.
The challenge with BSC is to determine the most relevant information to include. BSC
aims to communicate strategic intent throughout the organization and tracks performance
7
against established strategic and operational goals. It translates an organization‟s strategic
themes and objectives and aligns strategic goals with operational activity.
BSC being multidimensional incorporates financial and non- financial measures enabling
both reporting and predictive value. Thus by looking at three non financial areas, the BSC
augmented the traditional financial measures. This gives a broader perspective of the
company‟s activities and health and also serves as an organizing framework. It allows the
short, medium and long term objectives to be determined at a glance. BSC is applied in
operational control and also strategic control. In operational control, it enables managers
to monitor and control the delivery of a pre-defined set of activities to achieve “best
practice” performance levels. In strategic control it enables managers to monitor activities
required for achievement of strategy. It enables support in decision making regarding
interventions needed to ensure that strategic goals are achieved.
However, BSC is not without its challenges, the main one being the need to carefully
look through the goals and determine which information metrics are needed. This
requires managerial meetings to plan out which set of measures will relate to the
performance of the organization. If information does not match to these needs, it will end
up being meaningless. Also the four areas of BSC still do not completely give the whole
picture of the organization and further perspectives still need to be employed.
1.1.4 Pharmaceutical Industry in Kenya
Pharmaceutical industry in Kenya involves many different stakeholders among them;
manufacturers, distributors, wholesalers and retailers. The manufacturers are mainly
8
involved with manufacture of the pharmaceuticals, though some also do marketing and
distribution. The distributors purchase the products in large quantities and distribute to
the retailers who are the pharmacies and chemists. There are two major categories of
pharmaceutical firms that can be identified in Kenya; those that are subsidiaries of
foreign-based multinational pharmaceutical corporations, e.g. GlaxoSmithKline (GSK)
and those that are locally incorporated and owned by Kenyan nationals such as Cosmos
ltd and Regal pharmaceuticals ltd.
The pharmaceutical sector can be looked at as a subset of the health sector in that in
2010, the total health expenditure was 4.5% of the gross domestic product (GDP) while
the pharmaceutical expenditure was 1.65% of the same thus translating to 36.65% of the
total health expenditure. As such the pharmaceutical industry has a great role to play in
the health care provision. According to Kenya Pharma Expo 2014, “Kenya is currently
the largest producer of pharmaceutical products in the Common Market for Eastern and
Southern Africa (COMESA) region, supplying about 50% of the regions‟ market.” Due
to the rapid growth of the pharmaceutical market in the region, there‟s need for increased
production and export.
The demand for medicines in the domestic market is driven by a number of related
factors; the first being disease incidence and product class, major diseases being
HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis. Second being procurement whereby the
government procures drugs through KEMSA (Kenya Medical Supplies agency). The
third being exports, whereby exports within COMESA region grew by 96% during the
9
years 2004-2008. However, there has been a significant growing trade imbalance in
pharmaceuticals with imports registering four times the value of exports during the same
period. Kenya exports its pharmaceutical and medicinal products to Tanzania, Uganda,
Rwanda, Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Malawi, and the Comoros,
among others.
Sales of over-the-counter (OTC) and prescription medicine increased by 22.9% to 17.7
billion Kenyan shillings in 2008 compared to the previous year (Kenya Pharmaceutical
Health Report 2010). By 2014 the Kenyan drug market is expected to hit a value of 33.5
billion Kenya shillings equating to a compound annual growth rate of 13.53% in local
currency terms. Pharmacy and Poisons Act, Cap 244 is the main legislation that regulates
pharmacy profession, its main purpose being control of manufacturing, trade distribution
and sale of pharmaceutical products. The regulation of all the pharmaceutical firms is
done by Pharmacy and Poisons Board of Kenya (PPB), which operates as a department of
Ministry of Health (MOH).
1.1.5 Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Firms in Kenya
There are nineteen registered pharmaceutical manufacturers in Kenya (PPB, 2014). They
are mainly local with only one multinational company, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK). Most of
these firms are located within Nairobi and its environs. Collectively they employ over
2000 people, about 65% working in direct production. The industry‟s capability mainly
involves compounding and packaging medicines, repacking formulated drugs and process
bulk drugs into doses using imported pharmaceutically active ingredients and excipients.
10
Excipients are the non active additives used together with the active ingredients to form
the complete product. According to Kenya‟s Pharmaceutical Industry Report (2005), the
industry imports over 95% of raw materials while only 5% of the total industry
requirement is available locally. Most of these manufacturers aim to produce affordable
quality human and veterinary pharmaceuticals.
The industry is not capable of undertaking research and development (R&D) for
discovery of new drug substances namely pharmaceutically active ingredients (API‟s).
Also these firms are not able to carry out bioequivalence studies (BE) that are mandatory
by world health organization (WHO) when one introduces new drug substances (Kenya
Pharmaceutical country profile 2010).
Due to the government‟s efforts to promote local and foreign investment in the sector, the
number of manufacturing and distribution companies continues to expand. The
competitive environment in which they operate is mainly from two fronts; competition
with each other and from imports mainly due to high price since most firms are small and
do not have the capacity for large volumes. This translates to the locally manufactured
products being more expensive than imports since the Kenyan firms lack the economies
of scale. On the other hand, no duty or value added tax (VAT) is charged on imported
pharmaceuticals. However, Import Declaration Fees (IDF) is levied and amount to
indirect tax on pharmaceuticals. In 2010 the market share of pharmaceuticals produced
by local manufacturers was 28%.
11
Local pharmaceutical companies share common characteristics; among them need for
greater production efficiencies, shortage of qualified personnel; since most pharmacists
lack the industrial orientation, production of common lines; mainly generics and low
capacity utilization, among others.
1.2 Research Problem
Determination of the effects of strategic management elements on business performance
is enabled through carrying out evaluation and control on such elements. One cannot
control what cannot be measured hence these elements need to be measured. It is
therefore crucial to identify which parts of the business can be planned for and managed
in a strategic manner. The BSC has evolved into a model that aids organizations in
strategy evaluation by harnessing its multiple benefits. The current research will aim to
use the BSC model, as originally proposed by Kaplan and Norton, which has the four
perspectives that can be used for strategy evaluation and control. Strategy relies on proper
evaluation and control of these strategic elements since the firms are operating in a
dynamic environment. Proper strategies will in turn translate into performance and
growth.
Pharmaceutical manufacturers in Kenya are already operating in a very competitive
environment. Locally manufactured pharmaceuticals face high competition due to two
main facts; they have a limited range of diversity compared to products from
multinational companies (MNCs), and MNCs have the capacity for mass production
hence the benefits from economies of scale. The need to also supply quality
12
pharmaceuticals at a competitive rate cannot be underestimated. It is therefore of great
importance that these firms employ measures that enable sustainable competitive
advantage. Their success depends, among other factors, on how well their strategies
enhance a strategic fit. Application of BSC can come a long way in helping achieve this.
Researchers and scholars have conducted several studies to establish various aspects
related to the use of BSC in various stages of strategic management. Jordao and Norvas
(2013) established that use of BSC provided an effective strategic process. Lin, Yu and
Zhang (2014) investigated the impact of BSC application on hospital performance in
China. Behrouzi, Shaharoun and Ma‟ra (2014) established the importance of BSC
application in strategic management practices in Australian health sector. Kinanu (2013)
established that application of BSC in the performance of multinational corporations
listed in Nairobi securities exchange assisted in measurement of the four BSC
perspectives. Mwangi (2013) established that large Pharmaceutical firms in Kenya have
adopted strategic management practices. Wanguku (2013) established that out of the
international non-governmental organizations surveyed in his research, 34% applied
BSC.
There is limited information regarding the application of BSC as a tool for strategy
evaluation and control in the Pharmaceutical Manufacturing firms in Kenya. As such this
study aims to fill this gap. The research question therefore is, to what extent do these
Pharmaceutical Manufacturing firms apply BSC in strategy evaluation and control?
13
1.3 Research Objective
The objective of this study was to determine the extent of application of BSC by
Pharmaceutical Manufacturing firms in Kenya in the evaluation and control of their
strategies.
1.4 Value of the Study
The study will be of benefit to scholars and academicians in that it will serve to advance
knowledge in the area of BSC as a tool in application of good strategic management
practices. This study approach can be applied to similar firms under different settings and
also to different firms under similar settings. It will also serve as a future reference to
further studies as a source of critic or guidance. It will also raise a series of research
questions and propose avenues for further research.
This study will be of value to the practitioners in enabling a better understanding of the
BSC and how its approach can improve performance by proper evaluation and control of
strategy. These practices will enable firm attain sustainable competitive advantage in the
face of the competitive dynamic environments within which they operate. This enables
the firms to attain a strategic fit and hence enhance the firm‟s performance.
The insights gained in this study will help Government policy makers to be in a more
informed position to formulate better policies with regard to the pharmaceutical
manufacturing industry. These can enable harnessing great benefits which includes
employment, efficient productivity, health provision and contribution to the country‟s
GDP, among others.
14
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
This chapter aims to provide a theoretical background of the study. It will also review
the literature by various researchers and scholars regarding strategy evaluation and
control, process of strategy evaluation and control and its importance in strategic
management. This chapter also covers the various methods and tools that are used in
strategy evaluation and control, among them BSC which is the highlight of the study. It
will seek to emphasize the application of BSC as a method of strategy evaluation and
control, its challenges and benefits.
2.2 Theoretical Foundation
This section aims to provide a background of some of the theories upon which the use of
BSC in strategic evaluation and control can be better understood. Theories that were put
to perspective are the Resource Based View theory (RBV) and the Dynamic Capability
theory.
The RBV theory sees resources, both tangible and intangible, as a source of superior firm
performance and a basis for competitive advantage. Penrose (1959) conceived the firm as
an administrative organization and a collection of productive resources, both physical and
human. The application of firm‟s tangible and intangible resources at its disposal forms
the basis of its sustainable competitive advantage (SCA). Tangible resources are the
physical aspects such as land, machinery and finance while intangible resources are the
15
non-physical assets such as knowledge, reputation, information etc. The resource based
view of strategy aims to explain the distinctiveness of a firms capabilities that leads to its
superior performance and SCA.
For the resource to contribute to SCA, it needs to have four main attributes namely;
valuable, rare, in-imitable and non-substitutable. Employment and deployment of these
resources matters as much as the resource itself. Hence competence refers to the
effectiveness of the application of these resources in the firms‟ activities and processes.
This theory recognizes the facts that, first, organizations are not identical, they have
different capabilities and as such they are heterogeneous in nature. Secondly, the
capabilities of one organization are difficult to be copied or obtained by another. Thirdly,
an organization will try to achieve SCA by enhancing its capacities‟ that the rival firms
do not have or have a difficulty in obtaining (Johnson, Scholes & Whittington, 2008).
This enables achievement of strategic capabilities, which are the resources and
capabilities needed to survive and prosper.
The Dynamic Capabilities theory is defined by Teece, Pisano and Shuen (1997) as the
firm‟s ability to integrate, build and reconfigure internal and external competencies to
address rapidly changing environments. Its aim is to identify firm‟s specific capabilities
and how combinations of resources and competencies can be developed, deployed and
protected. This approach stresses exploiting the internal and external specific
competencies in order to address the dynamic environment. This theory brought into
view areas that were originally conceived as outside the scope of strategic management.
16
These mainly include; human resources, organizational learning, manufacturing, product
and process development, intellectual property, technology transfer and management of
R&D, among others. Thus, dynamic theory is an integrative approach to understanding
newer sources of SCA.
Dynamic capabilities theory attempts to deal with two key questions namely; how
companies change their existing mental models and paradigms to adapt to radical
discontinuous change and also how they can maintain threshold capacity standards and
hence ensure competitive survival. In explain the terms „dynamic‟ and „capabilities‟
Teece et al (1997) summarizes the term „dynamic‟ as referring to the capacity to renew
competencies so as to achieve congruence with the changing business environment. The
term „capabilities‟ emphasizes the key role of strategic management in appropriately
adapting, integrating, and reconfiguring internal and external organizational skills,
resources and functional competencies to match the requirements of a changing
environment. The main difference between the RBV and Dynamic Capabilities view is
that the latter emphasizes on the issue of competitive survival rather than just SCA.
There‟s need to focus on the development of dynamic capabilities in the face of current
business realities.
2.3 Strategy Evaluation and Control
Strategy in organizations involves the formulating, implementing, and then evaluating
strategies. Strategy evaluation is a deliberate and systematic process. Executives need to
reach a common understanding of the firm‟s current position before charting new
17
strategies. According to Rumelt (1993), strategy can neither be formulated nor adjusted to
changing circumstances without the process of strategy evaluation. Strategic evaluation
and control is concerned with tracking a strategy as it is being implemented, detecting
problems or changes in its underlying premises, and making necessary adjustments.
The need for evaluation and control of strategies arises due to the fact that no matter how
well a strategy is formulated, different strategies may emerge in the course of time.
According to Mintzberg (1994) there are „intended strategies‟, „realized strategies‟ and
„emergent strategies‟. Emergent strategy is a pattern of actions or behavior that becomes
consistent over time and that was not intended in the original planning of strategy.
Intended strategies are those that were originally planned for. Realized strategies are
those that finally get to deliver the objectives of the firm.
2.3.1 Strategy Evaluation and Control Process
Evaluation and control of strategy involves three main steps; examining the underlying
firm‟s strategy, comparing actual performance to plans and taking corrective action
according to the variances noted. The evaluation is both qualitative and quantitative
which enables an organization to adapt to changing environmental circumstances, a
notion that Brown and Agrew (1982) referred to as „corporate agility‟. Strategy
evaluation and control mainly takes two approaches; traditional and contemporary.
Traditional approach is sequential whereby strategies are set, implemented and
performance measured against the predetermined goals. The control is then done once the
set measures do not match up to the performance. This is a feedback loop type of control.
18
The contemporary approach is based on continuous evaluation of internal and external
environment, to identify trends and signals that point to a revision of the strategy. This
necessitates looking at formulation, implementation and evaluation as being in a
continual interactive relationship, and not a sequence.
Four criteria that can be applied in evaluating business strategy namely; consistency,
consonance, feasibility and advantage, were advanced by Rumelt (1980; 1993).
Consistency; the strategy must be consistent with the goals and policies. Consonance;
strategy must present an adaptive response to both internal and external changes.
Advantage; strategy must provide creation and/or maintenance of SCA. Feasibility;
strategy should not overtax available resources or create unsolvable problems.
If a strategy does not fit into any of these four broad criteria, then there‟s a possibility it
will not work. Various types of strategic controls; premise control, implementation
control, strategic surveillance and special alert control have been advanced by Pearce and
Robinson (2011). Premise control checks systematically and continually the premises
upon which the strategy is based and whether they are still valid. Implementation control
is designed to assess the strategy in light of the results associated with the actions
involved in implementation. Strategic surveillance monitors a broad range of events
inside and outside the firm that are likely to affect the course of its strategy. Special alert
control is a rapid reconsideration of the strategy as a result of unexpected events.
19
Effective strategy evaluation and control is important in accomplishment of short and
long-term objectives. It allows an organization to; maximize their internal strengths as
they develop, to exploit external opportunities as they emerge, to recognize and defend
against threats, and to deal with internal weaknesses before they become detrimental. It
enables organizations to move forward with purpose and direction, continually evaluating
and improving the firm's external and internal strategic position. Strategy evaluation
allows organizations to make effective long term decisions, execute those decisions
efficiently, and to take corrective actions as needed to ensure success thus enabling an
organization to shape its own future. In today‟s competitive business environment, notes
Huynh, Gong and Tran (2013b), it‟s important for organizations to implement strategic
management tools in order to increase their competitiveness and develop more
advantages.
2.3.2 Models/ Methods of Strategy Evaluation and Control
Evaluation and control can be done through application of various models or methods
namely; BSC, Monitoring Financial Performance, Management by Objectives (MBO),
Benchmarking, Contingency planning, Audits, and Performance Contracting, among
others. Contingency plans are alternative plans that can be put to effect if certain key
events do not occur as expected. To minimize the impact of potential threats, some firms
develop these as part the strategy evaluation process. Alternative strategies not selected
for implementation can serve as contingency plans in case the strategies selected do not
work.
20
“Auditing is a systematic process of objectively obtaining and evaluating evidence
regarding assertions about economic actions and events to ascertain the degree of
correspondence between those assertions and the established criteria and communicating
the results to interested users” (American Accounting Association). It is a frequently used
tool in strategy evaluation. Benchmarking is a method whereby performance metrics are
compared to industry‟s best practices from other companies. It determines who is the
very best, who sets the standards and what those standards are. Various aspects are
evaluated and this allows organizations to develop plans on how to improve or adapt
specific best practices. MBO first outlined by Drucker (1954) in his book „The Practice
of Management‟ involves the management and employees understanding the firms‟
objectives in order to achieve them.
2.4 BSC as a method of Strategy Evaluation and Control
The BSC is a model that can be applied to all the three main phases of strategic
management. In this study we look at its use in evaluation and control. The model aims at
making the measurement of business strategy more concrete and enables managers to
think of what vision and strategy is all about, thus leading to achievement of the same. In
BSC top level objectives are translated into operational objectives as they progress down
the organization, and each manager develops measures that will help achieve the higher
level objectives (Kaplan & Norton, 2001). The critical characteristics of the BSC are
mainly; its focus on the organization‟ strategy, the selection of a manageable data items
to monitor, and the mix of financial and non-financial data items.
21
2.4.1 Use of BSC in Strategy Evaluation and Control
The formulation of the BSC framework starts by looking at the four perspectives as was
originally advanced by Kaplan and Norton namely; financial, customers, internal
business processes and innovation and growth (Kaplan & Norton, 1992). For BSC to be
used in evaluation and control; it‟s important to set effective measurable data,
expectations should be realistic, ensure that there‟s consistency in data and corrective
intervention methods should be applicable. Developing the right metrics to translate the
strategic objective is as important as defining the objectives themselves. Challenging, yet
obtainable, targets for each metric need to be established in order to motivate each and
every area to achieve excellent results. Strategic objectives that drive performance for the
objectives are selected, periodic data collection done and reporting for the metrics and
initiatives done accordingly.
The BSC enables the visual documentation of the links between the measures in a
„Strategy map‟ or „Strategic Linkage Model‟ in which the cause- effect chain among the
objectives of the strategy are linked (Kaplan & Norton, 2000). Kaplan and Norton argue
that, strategy, being a set of hypothesis about cause and effect, can be expressed in a set
of if-then statements. These statements help demonstrate how intangible assets, such as
employees, get converted into tangible financial results. For example, an organization can
be able to link improved profits from improved sales to the training of employees.
Norreklit (2000) argues that the BSC is a strategic control framework that links together
measurements in a causal chain that passes through the entire company. As such a
properly structured BSC can make the relationships between the four perspectives
22
measurements more explicit, and thus the strategy more understandable to managers and
employees.
2.4.2 Challenges of BSC in Strategy Evaluation and Control
Application of BSC does not come without its challenges as highlighted by Kaplan and
Norton (1996). The biggest challenge is working out what is the most relevant
information to include. Each firm should identify measures appropriate to its strategy and
competitive position. The development process should focus on establishing consensus
about the design within the development group. Communication of strategy, strategy
maps, and scorecards needs to be emphasized and all involved need to be in continuous
communication. Information on BSC metrics need to be reliable, on time and continuous.
Other challenges include; comprehensive understanding of the principles underlying the
model, implanting the necessary changes and commitment towards the new philosophy.
It‟s necessary to have the BSC designed by people who have knowledge in the
organization and management responsibility since much of the benefit comes from the
design process itself. The best designs are those developed by the people who will
eventually use them.
2.4.3 Benefits of BSC in Strategy Evaluation and Control
In their book, “translating strategy into action: The Balanced scorecard” Kaplan and
Norton (1996) argue that the real power of BSC occurs when it is transformed from a
measurement system into a management system. It assists in identification of the most
critical measures for monitoring and developing strategy. It is used by management to
23
align key management processes and systems to the strategy through; translating strategy
into operational terms, align organization to the strategy, make strategy everyone
everyday job, make strategy a continual process, and mobilize leadership for change
(Kaplan & Norton, 2001).
Effective measurements must be an integral part of the management process, yet BSC,
being a measurement system is also a management system that can motivate
breakthrough improvements in critical areas such as, production process, customer
service and market development (Kaplan & Norton, 1993). The BSC can be used by
managers to keep track of the execution of activities by staff within their control and
monitor the consequences arising from these actions. The BSC enables managers to
understand many interrelationships leading to improved decision making and problem
solving.
BSC provides measures that show what has already happened (financial measures) and
operational measures that act as the drivers of future financial performance. Norreklit
(2000) argues that the BSC is distinct from other strategic measurement system in that it
is more than an ad hoc collection of financial and non- financial measures. By
considering all the operational measures together, the BSC guards against sub
optimization. Based on the evaluation of complete set of measures in the BSC, strategic
managers are in a position to re-evaluate the company‟s missions and goals. Problems
can be rectified and new opportunities exploited by changing the strategy. The BSC has
been applied successfully to private sector companies, government agencies and non-
profit organizations (Hanson, 2003).
24
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
This chapter examines the research design and methodology that was used in the study. It
covers the research design, study population, method of data collection and how the data
was analyzed.
3.2 Research Design
The study was a cross sectional survey design in that data was collected at one specific
point in time. A survey is an attempt to collect data from members of a population in
order to determine the current status of that population with regard to one or more
variables (Mugenda & Mugenda, 2003). A survey research refers to a body of techniques
for collecting data on characteristics, attitudes, thoughts, and behavior by obtaining
responses from individuals to a set of prepared questions (Doyle, 2004).
3.3 Population of study
Population of interest comprised all the nineteen pharmaceutical manufacturers in Kenya
as indicated in appendix I. The study was therefore a census and no sampling was done.
Population refers to the total collection of elements about which the researcher makes
some inferences (Cooper & Schindler, 2003).
3.4 Data Collection
The study used both primary data and secondary data. Primary data was collected by use
of questionnaire containing both open-ended and close-ended questions. The
25
questionnaire was given to one of the senior top level manager, either the CEO‟s or
Managing Directors since they are the ones involved with formulation of strategies in
these companies. Hence the study aimed at getting nineteen respondents. The method of
application of the questionnaire was self-administered and was distributed by drop and
pick method.
3.5 Data Analysis
Data analysis for the data from the closed ended questions, that is quantitative in nature,
was done by use of descriptive statistics. Descriptive statistics involves quantitatively
describing the main features of a collection of information. Measures of central tendency
such as median mean and mode was used. Measures of variability which include
variances and standard deviations were applied as well as percentages and proportions. A
descriptive study is concerned with determining the frequency with which something
occurs without manipulating the variables (Bryman & Bell, 2011). Data obtained from
the open ended questions contained qualitative data, same to the secondary data that was
reviewed. This qualitative data was analyzed by content analysis.
26
CHAPTER FOUR
DATA ANALYSIS, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Introduction
This chapter is a presentation of results and findings obtained from field responses and
data, broken into three parts. The first section deals with the demographic information,
while the second section presents findings of the analysis on BSC application. The third
part consists of the discussions of the findings.
4.2 Demographic Results
Demographic information provides general information of the respondents in the study.
The study sought to find out the demographic information of the respondents which
included level of education, professional qualification, years worked in the
pharmaceutical companies, age of respondent and years of operation of the company. The
findings of the study are discussed in the subsections below.
4.2.1 Response Rate
From the data collected, out of the 19 questionnaires administered, 14 were filled and
returned as presented in Table 4.1. This represented 73.6% response rate, which is
considered satisfactory to make conclusions for the study. According to Mugenda and
Mugenda (2003) a 50% response rate is adequate, 60% good and above 70% rated very
good. This also correlates with Bailey (2000) assertion that a response rate of 50% is
adequate, while a response rate greater than 70% is very good. This implies that based on
this assertion; the response rate in this case was calculated to be 73.6% was very good.
27
This high response rate can be attributed to the data collection procedures, where the
researcher pre-notified the potential participants and applied the drop and pick method
where the questionnaires were picked at a later date to allow the respondents ample time
to fill the questionnaires.
Table 4.1: Response Rate
Frequency Percentage
Returned Questionnaires 14 73.6%
Unreturned questionnaires 5 26.4%
Total 19 100%
Source Research data
4.2.2 Pilot Test Results
To establish validity, the research instrument was given to experts who were experienced
to evaluate the relevance of each item in the instrument in relation to the objectives. The
same were rated on the scale of 1 (very relevant) to 4 (not very relevant). Validity was
determined by use of content validity index (CVI). CVI was obtained by adding up the
items rated 3 and 4 by the experts and dividing this sum by the total number of items in
the questionnaire. A CVI of 0.821 was obtained. Oso and Onen (2009), state that a
validity coefficient of at least 0.70 is acceptable as a valid research hence the adoption of
the research instrument as valid for this study.
The questionnaires used had Likert scale items that were to be responded to. For
reliability analysis Cronbach‟s alpha was calculated by application of SPSS. The value of
the alpha coefficient ranges from 0 to 1 and may be used to describe the reliability of
28
factors extracted from dichotomous (that is, questions with two possible answers) and/or
multi-point formatted questionnaires or scales (i.e., rating scale: 1 = poor, 4 = excellent).
A higher value shows a more reliable generated scale. Cooper & Schindler (2008)
indicated 0.7 to be an acceptable reliability coefficient. Since, the alpha coefficients were
all greater than 0.7, a conclusion was drawn that the instruments had an acceptable
reliability coefficient and were appropriate for the study.
4.2.3 Level of Education
The study found it of paramount importance to determine the respondents‟ level of
education in order to ascertain if they were well equipped with the necessary knowledge
and skills in their respective areas of specialization. From the study findings presented in
Table 4.2 below, majority (71.4%) indicated that they had acquired a degree at the
university, followed by 28.6% of the respondents who indicated that they had post
graduate qualification. It however emerged that none had certificate and diploma
qualification as their highest level of education since the study targeted the senior top
level managers, that is either the CEO‟s or Managing Directors in the pharmaceutical
manufacturing companies in Kenya. The findings therefore indicate that the respondents
have the capacity and skills to give clear information on the extent of application of BSC
in the pharmaceutical manufacturing firms.
29
Table 4.2: Education Level
Level of Education Frequency Percentage
Certificate 0 0%
Diploma 0 0%
Degree 10 71.4%
Post graduate 4 28.6%
Total 14 100%
Source Research data
4.2.4: Qualification of Respondents
The study sought to determine the qualification of the respondents that defines their
designation in the company. The findings were presented in table 4.3 below.
Table 4.3: Qualification of Respondents
Designation Frequency Percentage
Accountant 3 21.4%
Quality control manager 2 14.3%
Human resource manager 1 7.2%
Managing Director 1 7.2%
Company pharmacist 7 50%
Total 14 100%
The findings in Table 4.3 above reveal that the designation of majority of the respondents
were company pharmacist at 50%, the accountants at 21.4%; 14.3% were the quality
30
control managers while 7.2% of the respondents were both managing director and human
resource manager. The study deduced that the respondents in the designated
qualifications were knowledgeable and were in a position to respond effectively on the
application of balance scorecard as a tool for strategy evaluation and control by
pharmaceutical manufacturing firms.
4.2.5: Age of the Respondents
From the presentation in Table 4.4 below, the study noted that most of the respondents
were between the ages of 41 to 45 years (64.29%) this carried a frequency of 9
respondents. This was closely followed by respondents who stated that they were
between the ages of 36 to 40 years. This age bracket was noted to have a frequency of
14.29% and a frequency of 2 respondents. Next was the age bracket of ages between 31
to 35 years and it tied with respondents of the ages between 24 to 30 years and 46 and
above years. They all had a similar frequency of 1 and therefore each carried
approximately 7.14% of the total respondents. From the findings, it can be inferred that
the respondents were old enough to provide reliable insights relevant to the study.
Table 4.4: Age of the Respondents
Age brackets Frequency Percentage
24 to 30 yrs 1 7.14%
31 to 35 yrs 1 7.14%
36 to 40 yrs 2 14.29%
41 to 45 yrs 9 64.29%
46 yrs and above 1 7.14%
Source Research data
31
4.2.6: Years Worked in the Pharmaceutical Firms
The study sought to determine the years worked in the firms for the respondents and the
results are presented in Table 4.5 below. It was noted that majority of respondents in the
study had worked in the pharmaceutical firms for five to ten years. This carried 64.29%
of the total respondents and had a frequency of 9 respondents. Respondents who had
worked in the pharmaceutical companies for less than five years followed closely next
with a frequency of 3 respondents and approximately 21.42% of the total respondents.
The least number of respondents were those who stated that they had worked in the
pharmaceutical companies for more than 10 years. This group had a frequency of 2
respondents and carried 14.29%. The findings implies that the respondents were
experienced enough to provide valuable responses concerning the extent of application of
BSC by Pharmaceutical Manufacturing firms in Kenya in the evaluation and control of
their strategies.
Table 4.5: Years Worked in the Pharmaceutical Firms
Years worked Frequency Percentage
Less than five years 3 21.42%
Five to ten years 9 64.29%
Above ten years 2 14.29%
Total 14 100%
Source Research data
4.2.7: Years the Company has been in Operation
The study sought to determine the number of years the company has been in operation.
32
The findings in Figure 4.1 below revealed that the majority of the companies had been in
operation for above 10 years. This accounted for 71.4% of the respondents. The
companies that have been in operation for five to ten years accounted for 21.4% while the
companies that indicated that they had been in operation for less than 5 years accounted
for 7.2%.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Less than five years
Five to ten years
Above ten years
7.2%
21.4%
71.4%
Years in operation
Figure 4.1: Years the Company has been in Operation
Source Research data
4.2.8 Number of Employees
The study sought to determine the number of employees the company have. The findings
presented in Table 4.6 below revealed that the majority of the respondents indicated that
their company has approximately 101 to 200 employees working in the organization.
This accounted for 64.2 %. The respondents indicated that 7.1 % of the companies had
employees above 500. The pharmaceutical companies that had 301 to 400 and 401 to 500
employees both accounted for 14.3 %. None of the companies had less than 100
employees.
33
Table 4.6: Number of Employees
Number of employees Frequency Percentage
Less than 100 0 0 %
101- 200 9 64.2 %
201-300 - -
301-400 2 14.3%
401-500 2 14.3%
Above 500 1 7.1 %
Total 14 100%
Source Research data
4.3 Application of BSC
The study sought to determine the extent of strategy evaluation and control, extent of
BSC parameter indicators, measures attributed to slow or successful application of BSC
and also benefits, challenges and recommendations suggested by these companies. The
extent to which the respondents agreed to the given statements were rated on a scale of 1
to 5 where 1 = no extent and 5 = very great extent.
4.3.1 BSC in Strategy Evaluation and Control
The response as presented in Table 4.7 below revealed that the formal documentation of
vision and mission statements was rated to a moderate extent with a mean of 3.32 and a
standard deviation of 0.0546. The respondents rated that the formulation of strategy
involves top level, middle and operational level managers to a least extent with a mean of
34
2.81 and standard deviation of 0.1641. The response revealed that the respondents rated
strategy evaluation and control is considered of great importance to the company to a
moderate extent with a mean of 3.65 and standard deviation of 0.4541. The formal
documentation of BSC in the firm was rated to a moderate extent with a mean of 3.74 and
a standard deviation of 0.1534.
Table 4.7: BSC in Strategy Evaluation and Control
Parameter Mean Std. Dev. Decision
There‟s formal documentation of
vision and mission statements
3.32 .0546 Moderate
extent
Formulation of strategy involves top
level, middle and operational level
managers
2.81 0.1641 Least extent
Strategy evaluation and control is
considered of great importance to the
company
3.65 0.4541 Moderate
extent
There‟s formal documentation of
Balanced Scorecard (BSC) in the firm
3.74 0.1534 Moderate
extent
Source Research data
4.3.2 Review of BSC Policy/Documentation
The study sought to determine how often BSC policy/documentation were reviewed in
the firm. The findings of the study as shown in Table 4.8 below revealed that the BSC
policy/documentation in the firm was reviewed on an annual basis. This accounted for
35
57.1% of the total respondents. BSC policy review done on quarterly basis was indicated
by 21.4% of the respondents. 14.3% of the respondents indicated that they review BSC
policies in more than two years while 7.1% indicated that the BSC policy in the company
was never reviewed.
Table 4.8: Review of BSC Policy/Documentation
BSC policy/documentation reviewed Frequency Percentage
Never 1 7.1%
Quarterly 3 21.4%
Semiannually - -
Annually 8 57.1%
Biannually -
More than 2 years 2 14.3%
Total 14 100%
Source Research data
4.3.3: Indicators of BSC Application
The study sought to find out the extent to which the indicators of BSC are applicable to
the company. The findings were rated on a scale of 1 to 5 where 1= no extent, 2= least
extent, 3= moderate extent, 4= great extent, 5= very great extent. The findings as
presented in Table 4.9 below revealed the rating of parameters used in Balanced Score
Card as follows:
36
Table 4.9: Indicators of BSC Application
PARAMETERS Mean SD Decision
To what extent does your company apply BSC in evaluation
of strategy
4.81 1.26 Great
extent
To what extent does strategy evaluation contribute to firm
performance
3.52 1.22 Moderate
extent
How often do you use BSC as part of your reporting 3.43 1.16 Moderate
extent
Are you satisfied with the way you measure the performance
of your organization
4.92 1.11 Great
extent
FINANCIAL PERSPECTIVE PARAMETERS
To what extent do you measure sales growth 4.27 1.29 Great
extent
To what extent do you measure Inventory turnover 4.16 1.23 Great
extent
To what extent do you measure Return on equity 3.16 1.22 Moderate
extent
To what extent do you measure cost efficiency 4.46 1.11 Great
extent
Overall to what extent do you think your company evaluates
the financial perspective?
4.17 1.27 Great
extent
37
CUSTOMER PERSPECTIVE
To what extent do you measure customer loyalty/ retention
rate
4.61 1.22 Great
extent
To what extent do you measure customer satisfaction 4.73 1.25 Great
extent
To what extent do you measure Sales from new accounts 4.35 0.72 Great
extent
To what extent do you evaluate your product pricing 4.97 1.24 Very great
extent
Overall to what extent do you think your company evaluates
the customer perspective?
4.68 1.26 Great
extent
INTERNAL BUSINESS PERSPECTIVE
To what extent do you measure percent of revenue from
new products
4.91 0.24 Great
extent
Accuracy in delivery orders 4.32 1.25 Great
extent
Broken/spoilt/expired products 3.24 1.21 Moderate
extent
To what extent do you measure on-time deliveries 3.69 1.32 Moderate
extent
Overall to what extent do you think your company evaluates
the internal business perspective?
3.54 1.28 Moderate
extent
38
INNOVATION AND LEARNING PERSPECTIVE
To what extent do you measure employee training days 4.18 1.21 Great
extent
Upgrading of employee competencies 3.53 1.36 Moderate
extent
Production of new product/product lines 5.69 1.04 Very great
extent
Innovation to the existing product/product lines 3.08 0.32 Moderate
extent
To what extent do you measure effectiveness of your R&D
expenditure
4.34 0.21 Great
extent
Overall to what extent do you think your company evaluates
the Innovation and Learning perspective?
3.87 0.32 Moderate
extent
Source Research data
4.3.4: Other Parameters for Measure
The study sought to find out whether the company uses other parameters to measure the
BSC perspectives. The response from the respondents revealed that parameters such as
performance evaluation and production manufacturing evaluation were used in the
companies to measure the BSC perspectives.
39
4.3.5: Parameters Attributed to the Application of BSC
The study sought to determine the extent to which the given parameters have been
attributed to the slow or successful application of BSC for strategy evaluation and
control. The findings as presented in Table 4.10 below revealed that the respondents
indicated that the lack of skills and know how in developing BSC to a moderate extent
attributed to the slow or successful application of BSC for the strategy evaluation and
control with a mean of 3.97 and standard deviation of 1.411. The respondents rated
management as too busy thus lack of time to least extent in attributing to the slow or
successful application of BSC for the strategy evaluation and control with a mean of 2.91
and standard deviation of 0.8325. The respondents also indicated that difficulty defining
and setting measurement metrics attributes to a moderate extent to the slow or successful
application of BSC for the strategy evaluation and control with a mean of 3.08 and
standard deviation of 1.353.
Table 4.10: Parameters Attributed to the Application of BSC
PARAMETERS ATTRIBUTED TO THE
APPLICATION OF BSC Mean
Std.
Dev.
Decision
Lack of skills and know how in developing BSC
3.97 1.411
Moderate
extent
Management too busy thus lack of time
2.91 .8325
Least
extent
Difficulty defining and setting measurement metrics
3.08 1.353
Moderate
extent
40
Data collection not consistent or regular
4.5217 1.06173
Least
extent
Data evaluation of the various measures is difficult
4.3261 1.14728
Least
extent
Difficulty in understanding the connection/link between
the measures
4.1522 1.42196
Least
extent
Lack of proper communication between the parties
involved
3.2391 1.76567
Least
extent
Financial constraints/ process too costly
4.1957 1.15802
Least
extent
Source Research data
4.3.6 Benefits of using Balanced Score Card in Strategy Evaluation and Control
The study sought to determine the major benefits that the companies derive from the use
of BSC in evaluation and control of strategy. The study established that the benefits of
BSC in evaluation and control of strategy include that it helps align key performance
measures with strategy at all levels of an organization; it provides management with
comprehensive picture of business operations; it facilitates communication and
understanding of business goals and strategies at all levels of an organization; it helps
transform strategy into action as the outcome can be measured; it provides strategic
feedback and learning; its initiatives are continually measured and evaluated against
industry standards and it also brings about improved decisions and better solutions.
41
4.3.7 Challenges of using BSC in Strategy Evaluation and Control
The study sought to determine the major challenges that the companies experience in the
use of BSC in evaluation and control of strategy. The respondents noted that among the
challenges faced; lack of proper understand by all concerned to be able to implement,
poorly defined metrics/perspectives, lack of formal review structures, lack of proper
improvement methodology. Lack of efficient data collection, evaluation and reporting
also came up as a major challenge in these firms.
4.3.8 Recommendations to Limit the Challenges of BSC Application
Respondents gave various suggestions as to what can help improve the application of
BSC in these firms. Among them were; increase financing of BSC, widen the scope of
parameters evaluated, review of BSC by all concerned on a regular basis, ensure the
metrics are well defined in the system thus easier to monitor, design more specific
metrics that measure the right things that the stakeholders find value in, involve more
stakeholders in the process of coming up with the metrics and creation of governance
process that engages key stakeholders. Other suggestions included training of all
employees in efficient data collection and analysis, and linking rewards to performance
through effective evaluation and performance appraisals.
4.3.9 Correlation Analysis
This section presents a discussion of the results correlation analysis which was used
measure the strength of the relationship between the independent variables i.e. the
relationship between financial perspective, customers, internal business processes, and
42
learning and growth perspectives. Correlation analysis established the relative
significance of each perspective on the dependent variable as indicated by the benefits
derived from use of BSC in strategy evaluation and control.
The Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient (or Pearson correlation coefficient
for short) is a measure of the strength of a linear association between two variables and is
denoted by r. The Pearson correlation coefficient, r, can take a range of values from +1 to
-1. A value of 0 indicates that there is no association between the two variables. A value
greater than 0 indicates a positive association, that is, as the value of one variable
increases so does the value of the other variable. A value less than 0 indicates a negative
association, that is, as the value of one variable increases the value of the other variable
decreases. Table 4.11 below shows the correlation coefficient matrix of the predictor
variables.
Table 4.11: Correlation Coefficient
fin
an
cial
per
spec
tive
cust
om
er
per
spec
tive
inte
rnal
bu
sin
ess
per
spec
tive
inn
ovati
on
an
d
learn
ing
per
spec
tive
financial perspective 1
customer perspective 0.8345 1
internal business perspective 0.8507 0.8679 1
innovation and learning perspective 0.7612 0.8163 0.7568 1
Source Research data
The study in the Table 4.11 above shows that all the predictor variables were shown to
43
have a positive association between them at a significant level of 0.05 and hence included
in the analysis. There was strong positive relationship between financial perspective and
customer perspective (correlation coefficient 0.8345), internal business perspective and
financial perspective (correlation coefficient 0.8507), innovation and learning perspective
and financial perspective (correlation coefficient 0.7612), customer perspective and
internal business perspective (correlation coefficient 0.8679) customer perspective and
innovation and learning perspective (correlation coefficient 0.8163) and between internal
business perspective and innovation and learning perspective (correlation coefficient
0.7568).
4.4 Discussion of the Research Findings
According to Kaplan and Norton (1996) the four perspectives of the scorecard permit a
balance between short and long-term objectives, between outcomes desired and the
performance drivers of those outcomes, and between hard objectives measures and softer,
more subjective measures. While the multiplicity of measures on a balanced scorecard
may seem confusing, properly constructed scorecards contain a unity of purpose since all
the measures are directed toward achieving an integrated strategy.
This study finding established that overall the financial perspective was rated as
evaluated to very great extent. The balanced scorecard retains the financial perspective
since financial measures are valuable in summarizing the readily measurable economic
consequences of actions already taken. Financial performance measures indicate whether
a company‟s strategy, implementation, and execution are contributing to bottom-line
improvement. Financial objectives typically relate to profitability-measured, for example,
44
by measures of sales growth, inventory turnover, cost efficiency and return on equity.
Alternative financial objectives can be rapid generation of cash flow. This perspective
shows the results of the strategic choices made in the other perspectives. By making
fundamental improvements in their operations, the financial numbers will take care of
themselves, according to (Kaplan and Norton, 1992). Private sector financial objectives
generally represent clear long-range targets for profit-seeking organizations, operating in
a purely commercial environment (Procurement Executives Association, 1998). Financial
considerations for public organizations should be measured by how effective and
efficiently they meet the needs of their constituencies. The findings were in line with
Lambert & Knemeyer (2004), who argues that the financial perspective translates the
purpose of the organization into action through clarifying precisely what is wanted and
gaining commitment to it.
The second perspective of the Balanced Scorecard is the Customer Perspective.
According to Doyle (2004), this perspective arises due to an increasing realization of the
importance of customer satisfaction in any company. This is one of the leading indicators
in that if customers are not satisfied, they will eventually find other suppliers that will
meet their needs. In this perspective managers identify the customer and market segments
in which the business unit will compete and measures of business unit performance in
these targeted segments. This perspective typically includes several core or generic
measures of the successful outcomes from a well-formulated and implemented strategy.
The core outcome measures include customer satisfaction, customer retention, new
customer acquisition, customer profitability, and market and account share in targeted
45
segments. In addition, the customer perspective should include specific measures of the
value propositions that the company will deliver to customers in targeted market
segments. The segment-specific drivers of core customer outcomes represent those
factors that are critical for customers to switch to or remain loyal to their suppliers. The
customer perspective enables business unit managers to articulate the customer and
market-based strategy that will deliver superior future financial returns. Kaplan and
Norton (1996), Kinanu (2013) outline the ability of the organizations to promote quality
products or services, effectiveness of their delivery and the overall customer service and
satisfaction. Mwangi (2013) points out that strategic management practices which include
this perspective is basically the value proposition that the organizations will deliver to the
customers in the targeted market segments.
Thirdly there is the Internal-Business-Process Perspective, which is primarily an analysis
of the organization‟s internal processes. This perspective was rated as being evaluated to
a moderate extent. Internal business processes are mechanisms through which
organizational performance expectations are achieved. Customer-based measures are
important, but they must be translated into measures of what the organization must do
internally to meet customers‟ expectations. In this perspective, executives identify the
critical internal processes in which the organization must excel. These processes enable
the business unit to: deliver the value propositions that will attract and retain customers in
targeted market segments, and satisfy shareholders expectations of financial returns.
Organizations should decide at what processes and competencies they must excel and
specify measures for each. Key internal processes are monitored to ensure that outcomes
46
were satisfactory. The measures should also link top management‟s judgment about key
internal processes and competencies to the action taken by individuals that affect overall
corporate objectives. This linkage ensures that employees at lower levels in the
organization have clear targets for actions, decisions and improvement activities that will
contribute to the organization‟s overall mission (Kaplan and Norton 1996). These
measures allow managers to know how well their business is running, and whether its
products and services conform to customer requirements (Behrouzi, Shaharoun &
Ma‟ara, 2014). It is no longer enough to satisfy customers, you need to delight them.
The study established that the fourth perspective, learning and growth were evaluated to a
moderate extent. Learning and growth identifies the infrastructure that the organization
must build to create long-term growth and improvement. The customer and internal-
business-process perspectives identify the factors most critical for current and future
success. Businesses must therefore improve their technologies and capabilities to be able
to meet their long-term targets for customers and internal processes. In addition, intense
global competition requires that companies continually improve their capabilities for
delivering value to customers and shareholders. Organizational learning and growth
comes from the three principal sources; people, systems, and organizational procedures.
The financial, customer and internal-business-process objectives on the balanced
scorecard will typically reveal large gaps between the existing capabilities of people,
systems, and procedures and what was required to achieve breakthrough performance. To
close these gaps, businesses will have to invest in reskilling employees, enhancing
information technology and systems, aligning organizational procedures and routines.
47
These objectives are articulated in the learning and growth perspective of the balanced
scorecard. Learning and growth issues enable the organization to ensure its capacity for
meeting customer needs, a pre-requisite for long-term survival (Kaplan and Norton,
1996). Metrics can be put in place to guide managers in focusing training funds where
they can help most (Behrouzi, Shaharoun & Ma‟ara, 2014).
The findings concur to Hanson, Backlund & Lycke (2003) on the benefits derived from
the use of BSC to evaluate and control strategy include translating the company‟s vision:
helps managers build a consensus around the organization‟s vision and strategy;
communicating and linking: lets managers communicate their strategy up and down the
organization and link it to departmental and individual objectives; business planning:
enables companies to integrate their business and financial plans and feedback and
learning: gives companies the capacity for what we call strategic learning. Existing
feedback and review processes focus on whether the company, its departments, or its
individual employees have met their budgeted financial goals. With the balanced
scorecard at the center of its management systems, a company can monitor short-term
results from the three additional perspectives customers, internal business processes, and
learning and growth and evaluate strategy in the light of recent performance. The
scorecard thus enables companies to modify strategies to reflect real-time learning.
48
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Introduction
This chapter consists of a summary the study, conclusion, and limitations of the study.
Also implications and recommendations of areas for further research is discussed.
5.2 Summary
The main respondents were pharmacists and the major age gap was 40-45. The majority
companies had employees between one hundred to two hundred. The study found that
balanced scorecard use in the Pharmaceutical Manufacturing firms in Kenya for strategy
control and evaluation was considered of great importance only to a moderate extent. It
was apparent that formulation of strategies did not involve all the three levels of
management that is top level, middle level and operational level. This is clear since this
parameter was rated to least extent. The formal documentation of BSC was rated as
moderate hence it seems there‟s not a clear fully formalized BSC documentation in these
companies. All the indicators of BSC application were responded to meaning most of
these companies are actually evaluating and controlling their strategies using the four
BSC perspectives as entrenched in the original BSC model. However, the lack of clear
indication of formal BSC documentation shows that the BSC as a tool for strategy
evaluation and control is not being fully embraced by these companies. A straight
forward and user friendly balanced scorecard would reflect a good measure for evaluating
and controlling strategy based on the strategic plan of the Pharmaceutical Manufacturing
firms in Kenya.
49
5.3 Conclusion
From the findings of the study, it can be concluded that Pharmaceutical Manufacturing
firms in Kenya have not fully embraced balanced scorecard as a tool for strategy
evaluation and control, despite the fact that it has effects on their strategy. The study also
found that financial perspective and customer perspective were the most highly evaluated
perspectives of BSC in the Pharmaceutical Manufacturing firms in Kenya. As such there
is needed to look at the other two perspectives as gains made on these two aspects may be
short lived.
5.4 Limitations of the study
The only tool that was used to gather data was the questionnaire. The use of only one tool
in data collection is not fully sufficient. Even though secondary data was used, some of it
was not very conclusive due to limited information on the use of BSC in these firms as
not much research has been done here in Kenya. Accessibility to some of the firms‟
managers was difficult and sometimes the questionnaire had to be dropped at the
reception. Some questionnaires got lost and had to be replaced yet time was of essence.
Finances and time also came up as a source of constraint and as such the researcher could
not achieve the target of doing a census on all the companies listed.
5.5 Implications and Recommendations
The study shows that BSC as a tool in strategy evaluation and control is not fully
embraced in these firms. This could be as a lack of proper knowledge hence the lack of
50
appreciation of the same. Based on the study findings, it is recommended that employees
should be involved in the whole process of evaluation of the balanced scorecard. Training
should be organized for all staff so that they learn more about the concept and fully buy
in for the Pharmaceutical Manufacturing firms in Kenya to achieve the full benefits of the
balanced scorecard. Communicating with the employees in the right way will help them
understand balanced scorecard and how they can use it to improve their performance and
more so boost their strategy.
5.6 Recommendation for Further Research
This study focused on the assessment of the effects of balanced scorecard in the
evaluation and control of the strategies at Pharmaceutical Manufacturing firms in Kenya,
it is therefore recommended that similar research can be replicated in other financial
institutions who have implemented balanced scorecard and the results be compared so as
to establish whether there is consistency on the effects of balanced scorecard in the
evaluation and control of their strategies. The researches will greatly contribute to
balanced scorecard, strategy and performance management literature.
51
REFERENCES
Behrouzi, F., Shaharoun, A.M., & Ma‟ara, A. (2014). Applications of the balanced
scorecard for strategic management and strategy evaluation tool in the health
sector, Australian Health Review Volume 38(2). Retrieved from
http://www.publish.csiro.au/nid/270.htm
Brown, J. & Agrew, N. (1982). Corporate Agility, Business Horizons, 25(2), 29
Cooper, D., & Schindler, P. (2003). Business Research Methods, 8th
Ed. New Delhi: Tata
McGraw Hill.
Doyle, J. (2004). Handbook for IQP advisors and students: Global perspective program,
Worcester Polytechnic Institute.
Drucker, P.F. (1954). The practice of Management. New York: Harper Business
Hanson, J., Backlund, F. & Lycke, L. (2003). Managing commitment: Increasing the
odds for successful implementation of TQM, TPM or RCM, International Journal
of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol.20, No.9, 993-1008.
Huynh, T., Gong, G. & Tran, P. (2013b). Integrating ABC with standard costs-A
Strategic Management Tool; Australian Journal of Basic Applies Sciences, 7(6),
556-562
Jaunch, L. R. & Gueck, W. F. (1988). Business Policy and Strategic Management, 5th
Ed. New York : McGraw Hill.
Johnson, G. & Scholes, K. (1993). Exploring Corporate Strategy: Texts and Cases, 3rd
52
Ed. Prentice Hall.
Johnson, G., Scholes, K. & Whittington, R. (2002). Exploring Corporate Strategy, 10th
Ed. Pearson Education.
Johnson, G., Scholes, K. & Whittington, R. (2008). Exploring Corporate Strategy, 8th
Ed. Prentice Hall
Jordão, R. V. D. & Novas, J. L. C. (2013). A Study on the Use of the Balanced Scorecard
for Strategy Implementation in a Large Brazilian Mixed Economy Company,
Journal of Technology Management & Innovation vol.8 no.3 Santiago Nov. 2013
http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-27242013000400009
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1992). The Balanced Scorecard-Measures that drive
performance , Harvard Business Review, Jan-Feb ‟92.
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1993). Putting the Balanced Scorecard to work , Harvard
Business Review, Sep-Oct ‟93.
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). Using the Balanced Scorecard as a strategic
management system, Harvard Business Review: Jan-Feb pp. 75-85.
Kaplan, R. S. & Norton, D. P. (2000). The strategy focused organization: How Balanced
Scorecard Companies thrive in the new business environment. Boston, MA:
Harvard Business School Press.
Kaplan, R. S. & Norton, D. P. (2001). Transforming the Balanced Scorecard from
Strategy evaluation tool to Strategic Management: Part II, Accounting Horizons,
53
Vol. 15 No.2, pp 147-160.
Kinanu, P. F. (2013). Application of Balanced Scorecard and the performance of
Multinational Corporations on the Nairobi Securities Exchange (Unpublished
MBA project), University of Nairobi.
Lambert, D. M. & Knemeyer, A. M. (2004). We‟re in this together. Harvard Business
Review, Vol 345, No.5, 162-8.
Lin, Z, Yu, Z., & Zhang, L. (2014). Performance outcomes of balanced scorecard
application in hospital administration in China, China Economic Review
Volume 30, September 2014, Pages 1–15
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1043951X14000418
Mintzberg, H. (1987). The strategy concept II: Another look at why organizations need
strategies. California management review, 30: 25-32.
Mintzberg, H. (1994). The rise and fall of Strategic Planning, New York: The Free Press
Mugenda, O. M. & Mugenda, A. G.(2003). Research Methods: Quantitative and
Qualitative Approaches, African Centre for Technology Studies (ACTS)
Mwangi, I. N.(2013). Strategic management practices and performance by large
Pharmaceutical firms in Kenya (Unpublished MBA project), University of
Nairobi.
Norreklit, H. (2000). The balance on the balanced scorecard-a critical analysis of some of
its assumptions, Management Accounting Research
54
Pearce, J. A. & Robinson, R. B.(2011). Strategic Management: Formulation,
Implementation and Control, 12th
Edition, New York: Tata Mc- Graw Hill
Pearce, J. A., Robinson, R. B., & Mital, A. (2010). Strategic Management: Formulation,
Implementation and Control, Special Indian 6th
reprint, New York: Tata Mc-Graw
Hill
Rumelt, P. R.(1993). Evaluating Business Strategy, Nov., 1993, retrieved from:
http://www.anderson.ucla.edu/faculty/dick.rumelt/Docs/Papers/EVAL2.pdf
Strickland A.J. & Gamble J.E. (2007). Crafting and Executing Strategy: The Quest for
Competitive Advantage, 15th
Ed. Mc-Graw Hill.
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic
Management, Strategic Management Journal, Vol.18, No. 7. (Aug., 1997),
pp.509-553
Thompson, A. A., Strickland, A. J. & Gamble, J. E.(2007). Crafting and Executing
Strategy, Mc Graw Hill.
Wanguku, A. K.(2013). Adoption of the Balanced Scorecard as a strategic approach by
large international non-governmental organizations in Kenya (Unpublished MBA
project), University of Nairobi
i
APPENDICES
Appendix I: List of companies
1. Auto sterile (East Africa) ltd
2. Benmed Pharmaceuticals ltd
3. Beta Healthcare ltd
4. Biodeal Laboratories ltd
5. Copper Brands (Kenya) ltd
6. Cosmos ltd
7. Dawa ltd
8. Elys Chemical Industries ltd
9. Glaxo Smith Kline ltd
10. Ivee Aqua EPZ ltd
11. Laboratory and Allied
12. Manhar Brothers (Kenya) ltd
13. Medivet Products
14. Norbrook Laboratories ltd
15. Novelty Manufacturing ltd
16. Pharmaceutical Manufacturing company ltd
17. Regal Pharmaceuticals ltd
18. Sphinx Pharmaceuticals ltd
19. Universal Corporation ltd
Source: Pharmacy and Poisons Board of Kenya, 2014
ii
Appendix II: Questionnaire
Instructions
Please answer the questions below as openly as possible by writing in the space provided,
using the key provided to rate your answers or by ticking the appropriate box. The
answers are crucial in identifying the extent of balanced scorecard application in strategy
evaluation and control in your organization.
Section A: Demographic
1. Name of your firm……………………………………….............................................
2. Number of years of existence in the Pharmaceutical Industry…………………………
3. Indicate your designation..........................................................................................
4. Please indicate your level of formal education
Certificate Diploma Degree Post graduate
5. What is your age bracket?
24-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46 and above
6. For how long have you worked in the company?
Less than 5 years 5-10 years above 10 years
7. For how long has your organization been in operation?
Less than 5 years 5-10 years above 10 years
8. How many employees does the company have?
Less than 100 101-200 201-300 301-400 401-500
Above 500
iii
SECTION B: BSC IN STRATEGY EVALUATION AND CONTROL
Balanced scorecard (BSC) is a strategic planning and management system tool used by
an organization to align business activities to its vision and strategy, improve internal
and external communications, and monitor organizations performance against strategic
goals using Financial, Customer, Internal Business Processes and Learning and Growth
perspectives.
9. To what extent do you agree with each of the statements below (please rank on a scale
of 1 to 5 where 1= no extent and 5= very great extent)
Parameter No
extent
Least
extent
Moderate Great
extent
Very great
extent
There‟s formal documentation of
vision and mission statements
Formulation of strategy involves top
level, middle and operational level
managers
Strategy evaluation and control is
considered of great importance to the
company
There‟s formal documentation of
Balanced Scorecard (BSC) in the firm
10. How often is the BSC policy/documentation reviewed in the firm?
Never [ ] Quarterly [ ] Semiannually [ ]
Annually [ ] biannually [ ] More than 2 years [ ]
11. Below are indicators of BSC that are used by organizations to evaluate performance.
iv
Kindly rate the extent to which the following statements are applicable to your firm. Use
the key: 1= no extent, 2= least extent, 3= moderate extent, 4= great extent, 5= very great
extent.
Parameter No
extent
Least
extent
Moderate Great
extent
Very great
extent
To what extent does your company
apply BSC in evaluation of strategy
To what extent does strategy
evaluation contribute to firm
performance
How often do you use BSC as part of
your reporting
Are you satisfied with the way you
measure the performance of your
organization
FINANCIAL PERSPECTIVE
PARAMETERS
To what extent do you measure sales
growth
To what extent do you measure
Inventory turnover
To what extent do you measure Return
on equity
To what extent do you measure cost
efficiency
Overall to what extent do you think
your company evaluates the financial
perspective?
v
CUSTOMER PERSPECTIVE
To what extent do you measure
customer loyalty/ retention rate
To what extent do you measure
customer satisfaction
To what extent do you measure Sales
from new accounts
To what extent do you evaluate your
product pricing
Overall to what extent do you think
your company evaluates the customer
perspective?
INTERNAL BUSINESS
PERSPECTIVE
To what extent do you measure
percent of revenue from new products
Accuracy in delivery orders
Broken/spoilt/expired products
To what extent do you measure on-
time deliveries
Overall to what extent do you think
your company evaluates the internal
business perspective?
INNOVATION AND LEARNING
PERSPECTIVE
To what extent do you measure
employee training days
Upgrading of employee competencies
vi
Production of new product/product
lines
Innovation to the existing
product/product lines
To what extent do you measure
effectiveness of your R&D
expenditure
Overall to what extent do you think
your company evaluates the
Innovation and Learning perspective?
12. What other parameters do you measure from the above four BSC perspectives?
(Mention at least two or more from each perspective)
................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................
13. To what extent have the following measures been attributed to the slow or successful
application of BSC for strategy evaluation and control?
Parameter No
extent
Least
extent
Moderate Great
extent
Very great
extent
Lack of skills and know how in
developing BSC
Management too busy thus lack
of time
Difficulty defining and setting
vii
measurement metrics
Data collection not consistent or
regular
Data evaluation of the various
measures is difficult
Difficulty in understanding the
connection/link between the
measures
Lack of proper communication
between the parties involved
Financial constraints/ process too
costly
14. What major benefits does your company derive from use of BSC in evaluation and
control of strategy? (Tick all that applies)
[ ] Helps align key performance measures with strategy at all levels of an organization
[ ] Provides management with comprehensive picture of business operations
[ ] Facilitates communication and understanding of business goals and strategies at all
levels of an organization
[ ] Helps transform strategy into action as the outcome can be measured
[ ] Provides strategic feedback and learning
[ ] Initiatives are continually measured and evaluated against industry standards
[ ] Helps reduce the vast amount of performance information the company processes
into essentials
[ ] Brings about improved decisions and better solutions.
viii
Any other…………………………………………………………………………………...
15. What are the major challenges of using BSC in evaluation and control of strategy?
(Tick all that applies)
[ ] Poorly defined metrics/perspectives
[ ] Lack of efficient data collection and reporting
[ ] Lack of a formal review structure
[ ] Lack of process improvement methodology
[ ] Too much internal focus than external focus such as suppliers, regulations e.t.c
Any other…………………………………………………………………………………...
16. What do you recommend needs to be done to limit the aforementioned challenges,
and make BSC an effective tool for evaluation and control of strategies in your firm?
Explain your answer.
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
ix
Appendix III: Cover Letter